At last! The controversy is over. It turns out the "scientific" claims promoted for decades by whiny self-righteous liberals were a lie, a fraud, a con--and we don't need to change after all

"Over the past year, culminating this March, a series of major on-the-ground scientific investigations of the frozen methane have been published. The author of one, Professor Tim Minshull, explained: "Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started." If you hold a match to the ground, a great flash of methane-fire now bursts forth.

Looking back, the historian Allan Brandt said the conservative-corporate machine that conned people into thinking smoking was safe pulled off "the crime of the century." We are now witnessing the crime of the twenty-first century, using the same strung-out old script. In his smoky hell, Clarence Cook Little must be offering a little chuckle."

Absolutely, any scientist that can demonstrate flaws in current climate change theory should be taken 100% seriously. Politicians who are against climate change because their benefactors would be monetarily affected by legislation, should be voted out on their ass.

It's an unpredictable sort of proposition. Most likely, we won't survive in our current numbers.

Worse case scenario, massive shifts in rainfall patterns leading mainly to new deserts. Some plants and fauna will migrate to new lattitudes eventually. Species dependent upon migrations are apt to experience strong environmental pressures. Chains of predation and other systems of complexity are apt to be disrupted. Agricultural disruptions will result in yields below critical thresholds.

+99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Extinction is the norm. We are dependent on more of nature that we choose to acknowldege, be it pollinators, soil microbes, or our own intestinal fauna. Odds are good we will misstep somewhere, and that will be the end of intelligent life in this quadrant for a quantity of time conforming to the mean standard distribution. Really, it's not significant if homo sapiens survives, but human civilization. It's more precarious even than we are.

Extinction is the norm. Mass Extinction is rare, the sort of event that is so significant that we use it to divide up geological time scales. We are currently in the 6th Great Mass Extinction, caused by human beings.

There are two carbon-based molecules that absorb in the infra-red. Methane and Carbon Dioxide. Try to ignore the "carbon is just an element" dog whistle from the deniers... or you will seem like an ignorant dog.

IIRC, the last time that comic was posted, the general argument against it was opportunity cost. For example, of instead of fixing the climate, you could feed the poor, explore space or whatever we happen to think is a good idea. Not that it would really matter, since governments tend to work like this:

Jim Hacker: Math has become politicized: If it costs 5 billion pounds a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences and 75 pounds a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children can be saved from starvation if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?

There is no global warming and we try to fight: Industries are forced to make for fuel efficient and environmentally friendly machines. There are 6 billion people on this planet - how is this a bad thing?

There is global warming and we do nothing: Depending on the severity, anything from regional extinctions to wide spread famines.

In response to EtanSivad Exactly besides even IF there is no global warming, we still live in a FINITE planet. Fossil Fuel will not be around forever. While Nuclear Power is promising, we still have to find ways stabilize the waste rather than just store it. There is no clean Coal as of now and while blowing mountains up sounds cool, it's pretty saddening to see the devastation in West Virginia. Ecosystems are sensitive so fuck global warming, what about just saving the biological diversity? I understand comprise we won't solve these problems overnight, but I'm all for the political pressure brought by becoming more environmentally friendly. We need to be more efficient with what we have, reuse things, rather than just consume them and waste them. So if you want to say I'm wrong about global warming fine, but the end result is for a better planet for all the organisms that live here.

In terms of the business point of view, yes it costs say Auto Companies more money, but without that helping hand do you think they would switch by themselves? Most of the major car companies were working on some type of alternative fuel in the 80's, they had cars which could get 30 to 40 mpg even moreso in some cases. They dropped or cut the funding for a lot of them. Why? They weren't profitable, yet.

The question we need to ask then is what is more important, being more profitable or being more responsible? I'm not asking them to not make money, that's inconceivable. Instead, I'm asking them to make me something that I can BUY that accomplishes and meets the goals I've set forth. WE have the money to give them and if they want to sell products they will come to terms that a lot of people are for alternative fuels and will produce something for us to buy. If they don't then they fail and like any business if you have nothing to offer you're done.

Now, in all reality saying I don't think saying "well even if we're wrong at least we save the planet". Instead, coming from someone with a science background so I am biased, I think we should be saying, "We need to help preserve as much as our resources and the biodiversity and ecosystems as much as possible." We basically need to be direct. The problem then becomes though that alot of people don't care about the planet. It's a sticky situation. I know there's alot of people who cannot afford to say buy a hybrid, or Seventh Generation products, that's understandable. But that is to say, if we have the means, why can't the rest of us try? Why can't we carry the load for a while?

While Nuclear Power is promising, we still have to find ways stabilize the waste rather than just store it.

We have a way with breeder reactors. We just turn the waste into more fuel and burn the vast majority of it off. We can use those domestically though because of people being overly scared about nuclear proliferation, even though other countries use them.

Nuclear is the answer for at least the next 10,000 years or so. After that I think we can figure the next step out.

Don't make it sound so simple, unless you are willing to deal with all of the complexities. Yes, some nuclear fuel can be recycled, but not all nuclear waste is used fuel. Think about the reactor housings, the concrete bunkers, the robotics and equipment that handles the fuel, etc. Any component that enters the reactor becomes, to a greater or lesser extent, nuclear, and needs to be permanently and safely disposed of. The engineering challenges of building a sustainable, safe, planet wide nuclear industry are very substantial. Use of the word "just" to describe how we deal with the waste is not really appropriate.

Look up "Basin and Range faulting," then look up some USGS articles on faults near Yucca Mountain. Then decide if you want the bulk of your nuclear waste stored in a place like that; also consider that waste needs to be emplaced, which is an ongoing process, so an earthquake would affect not only the deeply stored material, but also the material in transit at the surface/entrance/in tunnels.

I'm in agreement with you that nuclear can be a viable solution for coal; the New Mexico salt deposits are the best option. Stable, tectonically stable and already being used for nuclear weapons wast. Just need to sign the locals up to allow commercial waste and the problem is solved.

There's also the issue of thousands of scientists supporting the claim of global warming with their lives' work, whose message is spread by a few pundits, and on the other side, there are thousands of pundits spreading a message supported by a few scientists.

I know scientific claims can't be proved via consensus, and that both "sides" have reason to be biased -- (it's their profession to be right) -- but the observation of snow in DC or the polar bear's unwillingness to extinguish while catcalling Al Gore isn't quite enough for me. This discussion has degenerated into political snark. Remember, it's astonishingly easy to distort statistics. Temperature is plummeting here in San Francisco, if you measure from 1PM to 1AM. Take the hottest year in the 80s and graph through the coldest year in the 00's... etc.

people make the common mistake - supported by right-wing news media - of conflating local climate phenomena with global climate trends. an unusually cold day does not mean the trend of increasing average global temperatures is false; it's just part of the normal statistical noise in something as chaotic as weather.

Remember, though, that this is a political issue because it's a political issue. If the discussion were simply about global warming it would be left in the scientific realm (where it was for decades). When the discussion turns to what to do about global warming (which invariably involves spending shitloads of other people's money) that is appropriately a political argument.

When the discussion turns to what to do about global warming (which invariably involves spending shitloads of other people's money) that is appropriately a political argument.

Except that - faced with the political argument over cost, mitigation etc - one "side" has chosen to attack the science. Science cannot be decided as part of a political argument. It is impossible to rationally debate political solutions unless the science is accepted by all parties.

Of course, the problem is that the science is so solid and the potential ramifications so dire that a political solution is unpalatable to vested interests - so the science must be attacked in order to justify any stalling in the process or avoiding any solution.

There is no global warming and we try to fight: Industries are forced to make for fuel efficient and environmentally friendly machines. There are 6 billion people on this planet - how is this a bad thing?

Opportunity cost. We have to bear all of these costs to retool industries and in the process lose out on all sorts of things that could have been. Make that is a new artificial heart, hover cars or cities under the sea. You can't just write these costs off in some twisted form of Pascal's wager, who also made a similar error because there was a cost in worshiping god.

Your argument would pretty much advocate doing anything where if you do it you only lose opportunity cost and if you don't do it there is a risk of disaster, however remote. Do you have fire insurance, health insurance, car insurance, life insurance, long term care insurance, volcano insurance all with $0 deductibles and high coverage? Well why not? The only cost is money and the benefit is avoiding disaster in the event of the risk occurring.

In addition to the opportunity costs, there are also horrifying unintended consequences. If global warming is happening, why is it happening? Coal factories. Why do we have so many coal factories? Back in the 60s and 70s environmentalists thought nuclear power would destroy the world. Oops.

Oh shit now there's global warming. Quick rally the environmentalists who got us into this horrifying situation in the first place. Clearly their plan that failed us before will succeed this time!

What's their current solution?

It's cars! DAMN THOSE VEHICLES POLLUTING OUR PLANET.

Wait wait, clearly over 40% of the CO2 is caused by coal plants...

FUCK CARS! BURN THEM, REPLACE THE WITH BATTERIES.

But digging up that much Nickel Cadmium will be terrible for the environment.

GLOBAL WARMING!!!! WE MUST NOT THINK RATIONALLY!!!! AFTER ALL:

Industries are forced to make for fuel efficient and environmentally friendly machines. There are 6 billion people on this planet - how is this a bad thing?

Opportunity cost. We have to bear all of these costs to retool industries and in the process lose out on all sorts of things that could have been.

I don't like the "Pascal's Wager" approach to this issue because it strikes me as intellectually unnecessary, based on the massive preponderence of evidence showing AGW is happening and is serious. That said, I don't buy your response, as at the moment technical progress is limited by dependence on a finite resource, whose cost we have not yet paid in full. Using oil as fuel is inherently a dead-end - its only power is as a springboard to better technology. Moving to better, cheaper, cleaner and less geopoliticaly sensitive energy sources is precisely the opportunity that oil provides us with.

And as someone once said - when you can use oil for plastics why the hell would you chuck what limited supply you have on a bonfire?

I don't like the "Pascal's Wager" approach to this issue because it strikes me as intellectually unnecessary, based on the massive preponderence of evidence showing AGW is happening and is serious.

Pascal thought that there was a massive amount of evidence of god as well, but he formulated his wager to convert the nonbelievers. While you may be able to prove that AGW is occurring the jury is still out on its severity in the near to mid term.

That said, I don't buy your response, as at the moment technical progress is limited by dependence on a finite resource, whose cost we have not yet paid in full.

Technical progress is advancing in many areas and they are not all oil driven. We in the last 50 years have developed better mathematics for example and that has nothing to do with oil. Neither, for the most part, does the semiconductor industry.

Using oil as fuel is inherently a dead-end - its only power is as a springboard to better technology.

True, but we are springing just fine. We have nuclear power for energy generation. For transportation we have ethanol(though I dislike it), hybrids, electric cars with more advanced batteries and the ability to get more miles out of a gallon of gas than we used to without sacrificing power. We are also moving towards urbanization which will help us more away from an oil driven economy.

Moving to better, cheaper, cleaner and less geopoliticaly sensitive energy sources is precisely the opportunity that oil provides us with.

Great, let's start with converting the majority of our energy grid to nuclear until something better comes along. Wind, geothermal and solar are all nice additions, but they cannot be the core of our generation at this time. The only non-finite(essentially), proven technology that we have is nuclear. That alone will stop a lot of the fossil fuel burning and buy us some time.

And as someone once said - when you can use oil for plastics why the hell would you chuck what limited supply you have on a bonfire?

I agree. The answer though is not restricting the economy or pie in the sky wind projects, it is going nuclear as soon as possible. After that we need to work on battery technology and save the oil for the heavy equipment and for making things like plastic.

Great, let's start with converting the majority of our energy grid to nuclear until something better comes along. Wind, geothermal and solar are all nice additions, but they cannot be the core of our generation at this time. The only non-finite(essentially), proven technology that we have is nuclear. That alone will stop a lot of the fossil fuel burning and buy us some time.

Though apparently not a lot of time according to Dr. Mickael Dittmar a Physicist with CERN.

Quote: Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.

It's not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.

That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.

Pascal thought that there was a massive amount of evidence of god as well, but he formulated his wager to convert the nonbelievers. While you may be able to prove that AGW is occurring the jury is still out on its severity in the near to mid term.

Possibly, but even at that, this is very different than Pascal's wager. In this situation you can assume that global warming is false, and still receive a positive by acting in the same way that you would act if global warming were existent, primarily caused by man, and severe. If you assume that god does not exist, and then assess Pascal's wager, both positions are neutral at best. (Belief in god potentially being a negative, as it can cause you to act in a manner which is detrimental if a god does not exist; e.g., suicide bombing.) Further, Pascal's wager asks you to believe something, where as this does not. It is impossible to believe something by force because it is opportunistic to do so. It is no more possible to believe in god because you think it might get you eternal life, as it is to believe that the sun orbits the earth because someone offered you $1billion if you assumed that belief.

Technical progress is advancing in many areas and they are not all oil driven. We in the last 50 years have developed better mathematics for example and that has nothing to do with oil. Neither, for the most part, does the semiconductor industry.

Oil specifically is irrelevant. The issue is natural gas (and any small, finite resource) in general, which is used in most technological progress, such as in mathematics, which depend on powerful computers which draw more power than less powerful computers.

True, but we are springing just fine. We have nuclear power for energy generation. For transportation we have ethanol(though I dislike it), hybrids, electric cars with more advanced batteries and the ability to get more miles out of a gallon of gas than we used to without sacrificing power. We are also moving towards urbanization which will help us more away from an oil driven economy.

Indeed... which are all things we should continue to do, and we should continue to put in policies which reinforce this, as it is obvious that the resistant energy industry (resistant for a perfectly logical reason; positive change is detrimental to their profit.) will hold us back otherwise.

Though I'm not a big fan of ethanol power, either.

Great, let's start with converting the majority of our energy grid to nuclear until something better comes along. Wind, geothermal and solar are all nice additions, but they cannot be the core of our generation at this time. The only non-finite(essentially), proven technology that we have is nuclear. That alone will stop a lot of the fossil fuel burning and buy us some time.

Uh... yeah. Who said anything about shunning nuclear? It's definitely not the end-all be-all answer, as it IS limited (though less so than conventional natural fuels) but it is much better than what we're mostly using today.

I agree. The answer though is not restricting the economy or pie in the sky wind projects, it is going nuclear as soon as possible. After that we need to work on battery technology and save the oil for the heavy equipment and for making things like plastic.

Indeed, though I wouldn't stop at just going nuclear. Nuclear is NOT sustainable by itself... If we were to cut out all energy except that received from nuclear sources, we would have to build three nuclear plants every day for the rest of eternity to keep up with our power consumption needs. Obviously we also need to focus on building solar arrays in empty desert areas which receive a lot of sunlight, as well as building a space elevator, so that we can attached a large solar array to its anchor body.

And while wind and hydro are good in limited use, I would go all out converting all of our energy to either, as they can be very disruptive to the ecosystem that we depend on.

Further, Pascal's wager asks you to believe something, where as this does not.

It asks us to believe that there is global warming, that it is preventable at this point and that if we don't prevent it there could be dire consequences. These are all beliefs, though you could argue that they are supportable.

The issue is natural gas (and any small, finite resource) in general, which is used in most technological progress, such as in mathematics, which depend on powerful computers which draw more power than less powerful computers.

Actually computers get exponentially more processing power per unit of energy over time. Do you really think that this computer sucks less juice per unit of processing power than a netbook?

Uh... yeah. Who said anything about shunning nuclear? It's definitely not the end-all be-all answer, as it IS limited (though less so than conventional natural fuels) but it is much better than what we're mostly using today.

As far as it being limited. No it is not. Unless you think that we need to worry about what happens after thousands of years when we finally run out of U 235.

Nuclear is NOT sustainable by itself... If we were to cut out all energy except that received from nuclear sources, we would have to build three nuclear plants every day for the rest of eternity to keep up with our power consumption needs.

First I would like a citation on this. I don't think we need to bring 1,000 more major power plants online each year for the next decade in order to keep up with demand. Total worldwide consumption is 15 terrawatts for everything. I am talking about nuclear power plants for the electrical grid in the united states. Since many power plants are well over 1,000 megawatts I really doubt that we need to being online over 1 more terawatt per year indefinitely just for US electricity generation.

This is also assuming we never find a way to make more powerful plants. Assuming that energy demands continue to rise exponentially. Even if this is true, which I would doubt because it seems excessive, so what? Then we build the plants and keep on going until we find a better way.

Obviously we also need to focus on building solar arrays in empty desert areas which receive a lot of sunlight, as well as building a space elevator, so that we can attached a large solar array to its anchor body.

Why is building 3 nuclear plants a day unsustainable, yet a huge solar array and space elevator OK? In either case you have massive construction issues, but I would argue the nuclear plan is more proven and mature.

And while wind and hydro are good in limited use, I would go all out converting all of our energy to either, as they can be very disruptive to the ecosystem that we depend on.

If things are as dire as the environmentalists say, who cares about disrupting the flow of fish? Also do you think your massive solar arrays will have no impact on the environment of the desert?

You say that nuclear is not a long term option, but yet would have us endlessly covering the earth and space with solar panels. I am not saying that nuclear is an option forever, but I am saying it is the best thing that we have now. For all we know in 100 years we may have fusion energy or some way to draw it straight out of the void. I have no clue, but I am confident that if we can buy mankind another couple hundred years that it is enough time for them to plan step B. This surely beats pie in the sky plans regarding giant expensive solar arrays at the cost of crippling the economy.

True, but we are springing just fine. We have nuclear power for energy generation.

Oh my. Are you serious? Tell me - which country is currently the worlds biggest polluter, has the worlds largest population, and is currently undergoing rapid growth to catch up and overtake developed Western nations, and what is their primary source of power?

Yes we have Nuclear. Nuclear is hugely expensive, massively subsidised, and if we wanted to switch wholesale to that we should already have started building all the plants we need - yet there is still a lot of delay and disagreement. Personally, I agree that to a large extent we actually have no viable alternative to Nuclear, but we also need as much investment in solar that we originally pumped into Coal, Gas, Nuclear etc - the playing field should be levelled out.

And then ultimately fusion is our get-out-of-jail free card, but we may not even see that this century.

For transportation we have ethanol(though I dislike it), hybrids, electric cars with more advanced batteries and the ability to get more miles out of a gallon of gas than we used to without sacrificing power.

And aviation? And shipping? And rail? And the massive inertia in non-electric consumer transportation? Seriously, if we wanted to switch we should be undertaking a massive program of incentives. Instead we have a tiny handful of early models (which generally get sniggered at) and no infrastructure for refueling of electric or hydrogen vehicles at all.

If we all agree there's a problem and start now, we're decades away from slowing the growth in emissions, let alone bringing them down. And we haven't agreed, or started a concerted worldwide effort - simply responded very slowly to minority demand among more affluent consumers.

The answer though is not restricting the economy or pie in the sky wind projects, it is going nuclear as soon as possible.

Pushing to Nuclear will also require "restricting the economy" in exactly the same way as a push for greener tech. Without incentives and penalties, there is no reason to change from Coal or Gas in the first place.

which country is currently the worlds biggest polluter, has the worlds largest population, and is currently undergoing rapid growth to catch up and overtake developed Western nations, and what is their primary source of power?

I am talking about the US, but China is pursuing nuclear power too.

Nuclear is hugely expensive, massively subsidised

Massively subsidized and also heavily regulated beyond the point of necessity. Maybe if we lifted some of their liability, regulations and stopped the various environmental groups and NIMBY groups from suing them to stop construction they wouldn't be as expensive.

and if we wanted to switch wholesale to that we should already have started building all the plants we need

No better time than the present to address the issue.

Personally, I agree that to a large extent we actually have no viable alternative to Nuclear, but we also need as much investment in solar that we originally pumped into Coal, Gas, Nuclear etc - the playing field should be levelled out.

And then ultimately fusion is our get-out-of-jail free card, but we may not even see that this century.

Why solar? As you said fusion is the true light at the end of the tunnel. If we can use nuclear as a 100-200 year bridge to fusion then that works out just fine with me and we won't need to spend ridiculous sums of money on unproven solar technology.

And aviation? And shipping? And rail? And the massive inertia in non-electric consumer transportation?

These all have had improvements over the last few decades when it comes to efficiency. We could also have mega nuclearpowered ships and possibly trains as well. In any case this is all the more reason to get the fossil fuels out of the electrical generation side of the equation and save them for transportation and heavy industry.

Seriously, if we wanted to switch we should be undertaking a massive program of incentives.

Or just let the price of oil slowly rise and watch business retool on their own.

Pushing to Nuclear will also require "restricting the economy" in exactly the same way as a push for greener tech. Without incentives and penalties, there is no reason to change from Coal or Gas in the first place.

I am not arguing that we should heavily subsidize nuclear power or create some major industrial policy to allow for it. All I am saying is that if we reduce the red tape, liability and give them some protection from suits over minutia in environmental impact reports that the industry will take care of itself. All we need is to treat them as well as the other alternative/renewable sources and it will thrive.

But wouldn't a lot of measures advocated by environmentalists actually increase fuel efficiency and decrease reliability on imported fuel? I haven't looked at it very in-depth, so correct me if I'm wrong. That just seems like an actual tangible benefit, not simply "climate disaster insurance".

But yes, that's the whole point trying to be driven home in this thread. That said, we really do need climate disaster insurance, considering the amount of evidence backing climate change, and recent trends that are detrimental to our survival.

We only have so many resources available at any given time. If we use our resources "fighting global warming" we have that much less to deal with every other conceivable threat that might come along. It really only makes sense to "try to fight" global warming if we are very sure that: (a) it's a real problem, and (b) our efforts to "fight" it are reasonably likely to be successful. Otherwise it's pouring money down a rathole, which is pretty much wrong by definition. And could easily itself cause "widespread famines" or worse.

If the environmental reasons for pursuing green technology is strong enough to stand on its own - then why bother with the global warming debate, which polarizes people, into an environmental one where there is more a chance for both sides to agree?

So we will invade another Country, but refuse to Paint our rooves white.(Although we would be better off using Aluminum Roofing, but you know, they would last forever and that's just bad news for roofers.)

Seriously Gaston Planté invented the Lead Acid Battery in 1859, Brushless DC electric motors have been in use since before 1886, And that's just how my Father gets to work EVERY DAY.

Right, this is a tough situation. I want our government to step in and help green companies, but at the same time I know our government is inefficient, bureacracy is meant to be. At the same time, I trust very few companies to actually push towards being green by themselves. That is to say, does Apple and Steve Jobs really care about a green planet or is he really just into creating a good product and using the "greeness" as another selling point. Has Steve Jobs donated to any environmental causes or any other CEO/President of a "green" company done any work besides what they sell?

It's a good point, but I'm reluctant to make it because it puts both sides on equal footing. That's like pitting evolutionists against creationists. Or physicists against astrologers.

In fact, this is a matter for science to settle. And, for the most part, it has. The theory of man-made global warming has reached as close to a consensus as you can typically ever achieve among scientists. Nearly every major scientific institution (AAAS, NAS, ...) has come out with a statement in support of the theory.

It's time to listen to the scientists and get on with doing something about it.

It's important to remember, and to remind dissensionists, that the word 'theory' in the scientific community means something entirely different than it does in, for instance, the literary community. People love to argue, about both climate change and evolution, that these are only 'theories' and use that as a platform to insist that every theory be given equal weight in the discussion. This is patently ridiculous - gravity is a theory, and yet no one would suggest that we teach our children with equal weight that we may be held down to the earth by gravity, which can be explained with well known math and supported by physical experiments, and that we are held down to earth by a giant warthog blowing as hard as he can towards us all the time. In science, theories are not equal, and the theory of climate change (and evolution) has a large body of distinguished, scientifically sound research to back it up.

It isn't like Pascal's Wager because the question doesn't exclude the middle. The flaw with Pascal's Wager is it makes assumptions about the nature of god that aren't justifiable. That is that God favours people who worship him.

There is no sensible world in which increasing efficiency and decreasing our dependency on oil is a bad thing. Unlike Pascal's Wager we can sensibly put forward this solution as the best option in both cases because we know more (or at least something) about the systems under debate.

There is no sensible world in which increasing efficiency and decreasing our dependency on oil is a bad thing

Depending on what you mean by sensible... you're not addressing the complaint that the expense that comes with it would be better spent on other programs, medical research, feeding the starving orphans, etc.

There is no sensible world in which increasing efficiency and decreasing our dependency on oil is a bad thing.

When cap and trade kicks in millions of American families that already can't afford to pay their electricity bills and fill up their gas tanks will face a giant tax hike on those necessities. If you're part of the economic or scientific elite, then yeah, no downside. If you're one of the people who will actually pay the price of the policy, then it's not so clear cut.

The problem with pascal's wager is that it's a classic example of begging the question. The issue that is assumed true is that there are only two valid alternatives in the "wager" of faith vs. non-faith.

Since faith based belief is not based on any objective fact, this simply cannot be assumed. There is an infinite sum of imagined deities and outcomes, not just atheist vs. christian.

Pascal is immediately upstaged by proposing an alternate deity even more cruel, even more exacting with completely different demands than the deity he proposes we follow.

With climate change, there truly, objectively, and determinably is a limited set of outcomes and the hypothesis of what those outcomes may be is testable, verifiable, and validated.

With climate change, there truly, objectively, and determinably is a limited set of outcomes and the hypothesis of what those outcomes may be is testable, verifiable, and validated.

This is not entirely true. Linear gains in predictive capability in a chaotic system such as the Earth's atmosphere require exponentially greater accuracy in initial conditions and spatial resolution of the simulation grid. Furthermore, our capacity to increase the accuracy of our initial conditions is fundamentally bound by the Uncertainty Principle, meaning that long-term predictability in any real chaotic system is mathematically impossible. Even if we can explain why things are happening the way they are right now, we have no way of knowing if our predicted long-term trends will have even a qualitative correlation to the measured trends which we will observe in the near to mid future.

meaning that long-term predictability in any real chaotic system is mathematically impossible.

You may be confusing the principles of weather with that of climate. Climate is an average of weather taken over long durations of time. Climate is not nearly as chaotic, if at all in any real sense, as weather.

There're tangible, macro causes behind climate and the effects are quite predictable. For example, if the temperature of the sun drops the earth cools. In this simple case, that's one variable that lends 100% accurate predictions of climate and is on a scale where the uncertainty principle doesn't even apply.

We can point out countless examples where the same principle holds true.In fact, the entire foundation of science and causality is based on systems composed of chaotic systems behaving in a predictable manner. some examples are:

Predicting the behavior of a gas under certain conditions despite the gas itself being a chaotic system

Predicting the behavior of water even though its components behave chaotically

Predicting mental states through patterns in neuron activation even though absolute prediction of neuronal firing is not possible

However, we also have tangible examples of climate itself being predictable, at least on scales that we would care about. There are glacial cycles, general weather patterns, and we have an entire geological reference for weather that stretches back millions of years and show cyclical occurrences. An excess of sulfur dioxide can cool climate and changes in the physical properties of continents can alter climate as well (e.g. mountains, surface reflectivity, etc).

In fact, the entire body of research overwhelmingly indicates that all climate change that has occurred on earth in its entire history has been primarily due to the effects of 4 variables:

Variations in earth's orbital characteristics

atmospheric carbon dioxide variation

volcanic eruptions

variations in solar output

We're not talking about predicting the exact temperature on a specific day and time in the distant future. We're talking about general trends in temperature averages.

So, to summarize

Chaotic components of a system do not translate into the system itself not being reasonably predictable

Scientists and individuals make accurate and meaningful predictions of systems every day when they do simple tasks like boil water or predict the behavior of a gas under certain conditions

Climate is a large system for which we only care about the effects of particular variables over relatively short periods of time

The set of variables effecting climate change is very, very small according all the research we have at our disposable (which is not a trivial or easily ignored amount)

I have a feeling you have not worked with chaotic systems before, I'm not saying anything that's controversial or "fringe". These are the basics.

I have worked with chaotic systems before. I understand that this is the mainstream perspective of how to deal with the difficulty of working with chaotic systems. I have not worked specifically with the climate, but with other problems involving chaotic motions in fluid and orbital mechanics. Further, I have said nothing to dismiss climate science, but merely corrected the inaccuracy at the end of your previous comment.

I am also not talking about predicting the exact temperatures on a specific day and time in the distant future. I am suggesting that the dynamics of the Earth, and more generally Earth's context in the solar system are far too complex to say anything with certainty about the future. Poorly understood bifurcation points certainly lie all about, which certainly have the potential to not only alter the trajectory of the climate, but altogether change the quality and timing of its observed cyclic nature.

I realize that we can still predict a most likely outcome. We can still predict the statistical spread of a ball of initial conditions and understand the evolution of the average, but as you extend your predictive range further, trajectories have the potential to diverge from each other exponentially.

Again, just so you don't misunderstand, I am not dismissing climate science. I am merely stating rigorously proven mathematical theory which you misrepresented in your previous comment.

"I am also not talking about predicting the exact temperatures on a specific day and time in the distant future. I am suggesting that the dynamics of the Earth, and more generally Earth's context in the solar system are far too complex to say anything with certainty about the future."

I wish more people understood this. We do NOT understand everything about the climate, we do NOT have a control to test our assumptions on, and it is a fool's errand to pretend like we can somehow avoid these fundamental principles of science with no consequences or loss in accuracy.

I don't really like this argument because it reminds me too much of Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager applies a high prior probability to the existence of a particular deity. But to be honest, you have to weigh the FSM equally as well. And the Purple Hippo God. And the Sarah Palin God. And you have to explain, before you do your economic calculations, why you assigned which deity its respective probability. Why Jesus over Cthulhu? And maybe Cthulhu doesn't want to be worshiped?

Global warming offers two disjoint possibilities, both with significant non-zero probabilities that sum to 1.

Pascal's wager does not attempt to argue that believing in god if there is no god is beneficial. Pascal simply argues that one situation has a neutral outcome, and one a positive. The fault of this argument is that religious belief CAN often have a negative effect. It distorts your view of the world around you, and in many cases, it has also lead to individuals who have carried out egregious acts because they believed they were serving a religious power. Also, it is possible that a theoretical god would reward a logical thought process over that of an illogical, and self serving process. Or perhaps you warship the wrong god of many?

In the case of 'green' energy, if we ignore global warming completely (which we shouldn't, as it has so much evidence behind it that it is no less fact than cell theory), a shift to green energy is STILL immensely beneficial. Our not too distant power consumption will eventually overtake the amount of natural fuels left on the planet. Eventually, we will be using more power per day than the whole of natural fuels which were ever present could have provided. Thus, we need to begin preparing for future, high energy machines today by switching over to more plentiful fuel sources: Solar and nuclear.

Pascal's wager asks you to change something which is not in your power to change. You can't manually change what you believe. You can take in more information which will, in itself, change what you believe, but if you are asked to believe that the sun revolves around the earth in exchange for $1 billion dollars, as much as you may want that money, you won't be able to win it, unless someone puts forth new information which actually causes you to change your understanding of the relationship between the sun and earth.

In the case of the above argument, EtanSivad is not asking anyone to believe that global warming exists and that recent warming trends are predominately caused by man, he is asking you to realize that whether the previous is true, the strategy of converting to green energy is beneficial, so we should take that action regardless.

I don't think the same problems apply here. Pascal's Wager is an exceedingly rational approach to faith, which is perhaps the least rational of human concepts. In this instance, reason and scientific discussion are relevant and the argument holds some water. For me anyway.

This logic makes me want to choke someone. If you believe in global warming, believe in it because of the evidence for it. Not because of some fear of what might happen if you're wrong. Then you're no better than Fred Phelps.

There is no question that there is global warming caused to a meaningful part by man, only shills and idiots deny that. The uncertainties are how ugly it is going to get, and how much we can do about it now.

We don't need a Pascal's wager, at least not to that extent.

We should however try to get some estimates on how costly the countermeasures are, and if they're worth it - it might actually be more efficient to just wait and see and deal with the consequences later on, but I'd like to see some references for that.

An unfortunate part of climate regulations is that rich countries and corporations have to pay most, but the ones that need them most are poor countries and people.

tl;dr: The article is about how in the 50s shills and idiots "proved" that the connection between smoking and lung cancer is a liberal lie. Today they "prove" in the same way how there really is no man made climate change, LOL.

Oh don't mistake the people who framed the debate for idiots. That is one thing that they are not. No, these are very well-healed vested interests who will lose out substantially in the short term if the world turns against their products in favor of a society based on renewable energy and sustainability principles. These people have a rational desire to keep us doubting the true dangers, and they have been very successful in achieving that goal.

The shills may be successful in manipulating idiots, but they are also successful in manipulating public opinion to a large extent.

I agree with you that we need to learn about what countermeasures are available and what they may cost. I don't agree that waiting to see is a viable strategy. The reason is this: You have to grasp how long C02 remains in the atmosphere. The C02 we've already added will stay for hundreds or thousands of years.

Our annual emissions haven't peaked yet. That means that each year we add more C02 to the atmosphere than any previous year. Think of us as a car driving towards a brick wall. We still have our foot on the accelerator. When we manage to change our behavior to the point that annual emissions each year are less than the previous, we will have taken our foot off of the accelerator. But we will still be travelling towards the wall at full speed. Then the question becomes how much can we reduce year by year. In other words how quickly can we get to zero (or very near zero) emissions? We almost certainly don't have the breaking power to stop before we hit the wall, but we can reduce speed before we get there. The sooner we start breaking, the lower our speed when we hit the wall. The sooner we peak emissions, the lower is our required annual percentage reduction in emissions thereafter, so the less the human consequences of those reductions.

Now, what happens when we hit the wall? Well this is where the analogy breaks down, because there isn't just one wall, there's a whole series of nasty consequences, as if we had a whole series of walls to hit. Some consequences are already happening (ice sheets), others are still in store (famine). The more C02 that we've put into the atmosphere in total, the greater the temperature increase, the worse the consequences. In other words, the longer we wait the worse the problem gets, in ways that can't be fixed after the fact. We don't currently know how bad the consequences will be, but what we do know for sure is that the longer we wait the worse they will be.

Waiting is the worst strategy available to us, because it maximizes the damage.

There is no global warming and we try to fight: Industries are forced to make for fuel efficient and environmentally friendly machines. There are 6 billion people on this planet - how is this a bad thing?

The problem with this side of the argument is that the reality isn't how it's portrayed by those who are making it. The reality is that it requires massive degrees of taxation to fund a massive project on geo-engineering when the outcome is unknown, the funding requirements are unknown, there's been no cost-benefity analysis and it has the potential to stop other nations from developing. I'm not saying that these are the intentions but are the consequences with this course of action.

It's a highly policitised argument and both sides put their own views forward and attack people instead of debating the argument. I'll give you an example of this side of the coin:

We decide to restrict fossil fuels through a global taxation fund. This means the creation of supra-national bodies that subjugate the governments and citizens of the countries beneath them. Firstly, are we sure that this organisation will represent our interests, for the interests of others must surely be as valid? Secondly, if we ban fossil fuels (or at least make them prohibitively expensive for developed countries) on a global scale what happens to developing countries? India has a massively growing economy and a voracious appetite for coal but is still essentially a developing country. Much of China, one of the worlds biggest consumers of fossil fuels is still not industrialised. What about Africa? Do we deny Africa the right to develop through industrialisation in order to support western-driven ecological interests? If so, what do we do to make up for it?

With your other point about doing nothing there are consequences, some documented and promoted, some not. Nobody (on either side of the argument) has really looked at the costs of say reducing emissions to save the maldives versus relocating it's citizens and letting it sink. It sounds like a horrible thing to do but just as our natural resources are finite, so are our economic resources.

Here's another point. What if we try to fight, but in the process of our geo-engineering we destroy a natural change pattern or over compensate, resulting in global cooling at the height of solar activity?

For what it's worth I'm in favour of renewable energy, but not mandated by a supranational organisation. Solar power is getting cheaper by the day, and is now approaching the point where it can compete against fossil fuels for electricity generation. Wouldn't it be better to subsidise non-fossil energy research instead of trying to stop people from doing what they want to do?

I think 100 years from now regardless of our actions the problem will be mostly rectified, or in the process of rectification as fossil fuels become scarce and we move to other sources of energy and materials. Then again, that's just my opinion and I'm unlikely to be here 100 years from now.

It pays for itself in the long run. Fuel for wind and solar is free once you put it in place. There's towns in Iceland that have gotten free energy from geothermal power for decades.

By contrast, coal costs us in asthma etc even now before the major effects of climate change hit this country. So far just miniscule effects like 17% farm worker unemployment from drought in California.

These sources produce an irregular stream of expensive energy. Someday one of these technologies might be so effective that we can afford to use them for baseline power too - using extra power during peak generation to charge batteries or pump water uphill to be recovered later - but it's not there yet.

There is no global warming and we don't invest in environmentally friendly machines: Victory, as we make more money than our green competitors, driving them out of business in the long run.

There is global warming and we don't invest in environmentally friendly machines: We are doomed as anybody else. But we have the money to make the highest bit for fossil water, getting endless profits.

I make quite a few assumptions, I won't argue that.I'm also the type of guy that is happy buying car insurance because I've seen what happens when you hit someone and don't have insurance for their medical bills.

There is no global warming and we don't invest in environmentally >friendly machines: Victory, as we make more money than our green >competitors, driving them out of business in the long run. And pollute the hell out of our environs in the process. By your logic China is the ideal model for a global market.

There is global warming and we don't invest in environmentally friendly >machines: We are doomed as anybody else. But we have the money >to make the highest bit for fossil water, getting endless profits. That sounds like an ideal lifestyle "Sucks to be you. Sucks less to be me."

Right, we need to ask ourselves, is it only profit we care about? Or can we be environmentally conscious while being profitable. By going hybrid, lets say a delivery company only makes 2 dollars per delivery due to cost at first. While another company delivers with unleaded fuel, and makes 5 dollars a cost. Which company do you support? Are you willing to do business with someone who cares not only about their profits but also the community? Or the company looking to make the most profit? Hopefully, good "Green" companies will attract customers based on the former.

I understand your argument and it's tough because I feel a lot of people are so focused on other things within their personal lives that they also tend to forget about the big picture. Ex: I could be worried as hell about how I'm going to pay rent next month rather than caring about what paper towels to buy or how much MPG or CO2 my car releases. It's not their fault at all, we all just get caught up in the moment (which is good in cases too).

There is no global warming and we don't invest in environmentally friendly machines: Our green competitors continue to make renewable resources cheaper and cheaper, eventually we run out of non-renewable fossil fuels and our competitors drive us out of business because we failed to invest in renewable resources.

There is global warming and we don't invest in environmentally friendly machines: We doom the entire planet, ourselves included, and die with the rest of the world.

The nice thing about climate change is, even if it's wrong, the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning hydrocarbons is proportional to the amount of hydrocarbons burned, so one of the biggest parts of dealing with climate change is going to be reducing energy requirements.

Now, reduced energy requirements is a critical field for another reality that you can't ignore: There's a fixed amount of oil in the planet, and as that amount shrinks, the prices are going to go through the roof for energy. When that happens, when the shit hits the wall, would you rather be using lots of energy, or not a lot of energy?

I don't know. It appears that we must believe in man-made climate change. We simply have no choice. The science is settled and all that. Right.

When they increased the tax on loose tobacco %2500 to help pay for SCHIP, I quit smoking. If they start raising rates on electricity and fuel excessively, via "Cap and Trade" or whatever, I'll reduce my consumption as much as possible.

In fact, I think I'll start making plans right now. To find a place where I can live a semi-agrarian lifestyle. Raise my own food and produce my own fuels and power as much as possible, within the limits the law allows.

I'm beginning to see that it's probably a good idea to reduce consumption of everything as much as possible. And make enough money to pay for the necessities, and that's it.

What's the point in busting butt to buy a bunch of useless consumer crap, anyway? Why not just live on the cheap as much as possible? It's much better for the planet, isn't it?

I guess you're saying that I gave a serious response to an obviously ironic suggestion, but actually capturing and burning methane (to CO2) is a technique that has been suggested and used to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. (For example, a recent discussions on garbage incinerators.) If only what you suggest were feasible...

"What happens if the global-warming proponents are wrong, and we end up with less-polluted planet anyway? How is that bad?"

I hate this argument. The United States already has enough anti-pollution law on the books that corporations have to spend billions each year on lawyers to make sure they comply with every bit of it. Look at China, India, Mexico. Many less-developed countries need much stricter pollution laws, but the world will get along fine without Cap and Trade for now.

Speaking of which, if global warming isn't happening, or isn't caused by man, why would we need to limit carbon dioxide? Seriously, there are far worse chemicals going out into the atmosphere and the rivers and the oceans. Let the industries spew out all the carbon dioxide they want.

Beyond this, we have far better things to be spending our money on, like combatting poverty and disease and hunger. It is my view that we're trading people who will probably die tomorrow for people who might possibly die in 100 years.

The article is talking about the ridiculous people that are attacking global warming, how they have little to no scientific training and comparing them to people that denied that cigarettes caused cancer.

And some still do - there are some retards (especially in the libertarian forum) that still believe to this day that the case for second-hand smoke is 'unclear' ...

My mother is a lifelong smoker. She refuses to believe that second hand smoke causes harm. I'd imagine that's partially because she doesn't want to admit that her smoking may have caused me harm, because she would refuse to smoke near a window or outside. I remember our couch, the side she used to sit on, was black. Not because it was supposed to be black, but because so much tar had accumulated from the proximity of the smoke. The other end of the couch and all other furniture didn't have that -- only that one part of the couch where she would always sit, and where she would always smoke.

To this day, whenever her and I talk she still insists that second hand smoke doesn't do any harm. When asked about the couch (which she still has and now looks like someone melted a gigantic black candle over one side of it) she just changes the subject.

No, you misunderstand. The couch is divided into three sections by slits in the cushion: The left, the right, and the middle. This effectively breaks it up into three "seats." The left seat (where she would sit) is entirely black, especially on the arm where she would keep the ashtray.

The right and the middle, however, are cream colored. Same as when she first bought that couch. Next time I visit, I'll see if I can get pictures. It is the difference between night and day.

I believe in ACC, and the problem is not the scientists, it's the politicians. EVERYTHING we are doing in our life is making climate change happen, not just CO2 exhaust. What about deforestation and mass extinction, urban and agricultural development, and so on? Yet the politicians want us to go backwards technologically rather than simply learning to adapt to a changing world.

It is a true fact that not ONE so-called scientist has ever proven that smoking causes climate change. Not ONE! And no one has proven that global warming causes cancer! Those whiny liberal self-righteous gun-haters go on spouting off lies that no god-fearing Christian real estate agent in their right mind could ever believe. I say we pack them all up and send them all to Gitmo and waterboard the hell out of them until they confess. I thank god that the church taught me to think clearly and logically.

The problem was never that the planet is or is not getting warmer. The problem is that there are way too many people, who consume and destroy far too much. Fixing problems like the global warming is like trying to find a cure for the symptoms instead of the disease.

Global warming is politics. However saying that you can go on without a change is pretty god damn bold.

Yep, overpopulation is the disease of this planet, not global warming. And since you cannot demand implementation of China-like policies worldwide, the only solution is to wait until all countries become developed, naturally reducing the birth rate.

Is it a lie that our oceans and air and lands are being degraded ecologically speaking and that our wildlife is disappearing at an alarming rate? I think not. The lie is is in the hands of anti-environmentalists and predatory types who care more about money than the people who inhabit this planet, and are they more interested in pointing fingers at meaningless labels and debating issues they know nothing about and raping our lands and seas and defiling our air, instead of fixing the issues at hand. Screw them.

So because I bring up the questionability of the science behind the climate change theory I must not care about the environment or people, and only care about my wallet? That's insulting and naive.

People often say there's no downside if we act on climate change and it still turns out to be false. This ignores a lot of things. The billions necessary to alter the infrastructure could also be used to combat hunger, disease, and poverty in the third world which literally kills every day. Beyond that climate change legislation would bring with it attempts to restrict the ability of the third world to build up its industry. If their emissions turn out not to matter your condemning more generations to economic stagnation for no reason. It's trading the almost certain deaths of thousands or even millions tomorrow for the possible deaths of some in 100 years.

Questioning climate change does not mean I oppose clean air laws or would allow dumping in the oceans. And it doesn't mean I have selfish priorities.

Global climate change is/was a worrisome affair, though peak oil is still an imminent, undeniable issue. We use oil for EVERYTHING, and there's only so much of it on the planet. As the supply dwindles, we're literally throwing ourselves to the mercy of a few greedy businessmen. How about pollution? How about over-harvesting the oceans, the forests? All of these things take drastic tolls on OUR longevity on the planet Earth. Just because global warming was a political/enterprise scandal doesn't mean we can lie back and let the destructive status quo continue. We've got work to do.

[Denier] Monckton is an English aristocrat with no scientific training. He studied ancient Greece and Rome, and worked as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher. .... Oh, and he claims he can cure HIV. Seriously. As journalist George Monbiot points out, Monckton has stated in writing that he is "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases...including...HIV." He is prone to such wild fantasies. He has stated that he persuaded Thatcher to use biological weapons in the Falklands War. He falsely claimed he is a member of the House of Lords and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. When challenged, Monckton has admitted to a weakness for telling "stories that aren't actually true."

Please note that the author, Johann Hari has a very strong left leaning bias (and for those of you in the states this is what you would possibly refer to as hard left). I'm not saying yay or nay to his post (I will comment on this separately as to avoid pollution of this comment), I'm simply noting the bias for those that might not have heard of him.